GOP deficit-reduction hype used in ideological "values" war?
by Linda Beale
GOP deficit-reduction hype used in ideological “values” war?
crossposted with Ataxingmatter
There is concerted effort to portray Social Security as ruining the country by being a significant cause of the current deficit , and this is not accidental. Social Security has been funded by payroll taxes that are supposed to be dedicated to the payouts. But the GOP since Reagan has worked to cut income taxes and increase military funding (especially with the Bush “pre-emptive” wars of choice that Stiglitz now says will cost us a minimum of FIVE TRILLION), and has borrowed from those Social Security pension funds to pay for those tax cuts and military excesses. It’s the tax cuts and runaway military spending that are choking this country’s economy, not Social Security. That fact gets lost unless Social Security’s income and outflows are portrayed fully. It’s a fact that the GOP wants to be lost, I think, along with the overall amount of military and related spending in our budget.
The cost of treating Social Security as part of the deficit is that workers who have been locked out of sharing in productivity gains will pay, while the benefits have gone especially to the upper class that owns most of the financial assets and most of the military-industrial complex.
The deficit hype appears to be a concerted effort, in other words, to destroy the programs that were created in reaction to the colossal inequities that were contributory causes of the Great Depression and were intended to safeguard the broad-based society where growth is shared and everyone has opportunities that is essential to democracy. I just found that Robert Reich has similar thoughts, noting that this is a divide-and-conquer strategy built on three kingpins: the battle over the budget, the assault on public employees, and the distortion of the Constitution. See The Real Republican Strategy, Salon. What the GOP aims to do, I suppose, is to weaken the 90% who aren’t in the race to be the richest plutocrats of the country., and make sure that they secure the spoils for those at the top.
It would seem that the GOP is using this moment to
- Get rid of programs that have advanced gender equality.
- See Rebecca Traister, This is what pro-life means?, Salon.com, Feb. 18, 2011, noting that “Morality is on the side of women, on the side of children, on the side of a society that offers aid to its impoverished and to its young and does not discriminate against half its population. In Moore’s words, ‘Planned Parenthood is healthy for women, it’s healthy for children, and it’s healthy for our society.’ ” The post includes a video of Rep. Jackie Speier’s impassioned response to the lack of understanding about abortions.
- See, e.g., Top 10 Shocking Attacks from the GOP’s War on Women, MoveOn’s political action group (noting the attempt by various state and federal Republican groups to reduce access to abortions and r;define victims of rape (but not of other crimes like burglary) as mere “accusers”; expand legitimate “defense” to permit killing abortionists; cut funding for food and other assistance to low-income pregnant women and families; allow hospitals to refuse abortions necessary to save a woman’s life; eliminate preschool programs for poor kids at state levels and Head Start at the federal level; cut funding for services for the elderly poor (most of whom are women); cut all funding for Planned Parenthood; cut all funding for family planning.
- Get rid of public employee unions (and reneg on pension promises made years ago at the same time). The mainstream media has lapped this up like the lapdogs they are. See, e.g., Wall Street Journal, New York Times stories.
- Gov. Walker in Wisconsin–the state where there is a pitched rhetorical battle to get rid of public employee unions and defund public pensions–die not inherit a budget shortfall. Like at the national level, GOP policies are driving the attack on public employee more than the actual deficits involved–especially since those shortfalls at states are related to the toll of the Great Recession and to states’ long-term habits of borrowing from Peter (their own employees’ pension funds) to pay Paul (e.g., their other creditors or even their wealthiest taxpayers who were spared taxes by the borrowing). See, for example, Mark Thoma at Economist’s View on the spreading use of recession-induced budget gaps to target unions. Gov. Walker has pushed the “tax cuts create jobs” idea, signing various business tax cuts into law. See Walker Gins Up Crisis to Reward Cronies, The Cap Times, Feb. 16, 2011; Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau, annual review of the State’s Fiscal Status (Jan 2010) ( even with the recession and various changes that caused the state to have less revenues, projecting a surplus of more than $55 million at the end of the 2009-2011 biennium which, though below the statutory surplus of $65 million required, means that the state was still doing well); Walker Signs 2 More Business Incentive Bills, Journal Sentinel, Jan. 31, 2011. Exacerbating the shortfall created by the tax cuts, the state has about $260 million of unfunded obligations– from taking $200 million out of a dedicated fund for general fund purposes and from an unpaid obligation to Minnesota under a tax reciprocity agreement (an obligation that is earning interest at more than $4000 a day). So the public employees aren’t the cause of the state’s problems.
- This is particularly worrisome for higher education. See Inside Higher Education story on impact on Wisconsin academics. These attempts to hit public employees generally start with some of the studies that suggest that public employees have better benefits than private employees. As noted in earlier posts, that is debatable. Commensurability is a problem, since many state and federal government jobs require higher education and experience levels. Wages are negotiated in exchange for better long-term benefits, which the states are now talking about reneging on. It’s as though the private industry owners wrote the following script based on this “time to get even” rationale.
for years, we have underpaid our workers while keeping all the productivity gains for ourselves and paying ourselves knock-out pension and health benefits.
We’ve made sure that workers couldn’t unionize, by spending lobbying dollars to fight fair systems (like carch-check) and using all the powers of the employer to intimidate workers (see, e.g., Wal-Mart’s long history of unfair labor practices).
Now it is clear that unions do benefit workers–just look at the fact that public employees have decent wages and benefits because they are able to bargain collectively with a decent employer that doesn’t use these methods to squelch workers.
We’ve got to stop that–let’s paint a picture of underpaid private workers who have very little in benefits, in order to incite jealousy of public workers.
Then we can use the deficit that we created by evading taxes, lobbying for tax cuts, and charging ridiciulous amounts for contracts through the military-industrial-banking complex to justify taking away both the benefits that public employees long ago gave up wages to receive and the collective bargaining rights that allowed them to get decent wages and benefits.
After all, the alternative would be for workers in our industries to realize that they’ve been cheated by not sharing in productivity and not being permitted to unionize.
We can’t have that–they might get some share of the wealth that has been increasingly accruing to us.
And we deserve all that wealth, because we’ve run our companies so well by making sure that they can’t unionize and that workers understand that they, not us, are expendable.
-
- Hamstring or get rid of the EPA –The script here sounds very familiar. We can’t have the EPA regulating carbon dioxide. That would cut back on our profits. So what if we are contributing the the rapidly accelerating global warming debacle. We just can’t have environmental safeguards preventing us from making a killing (in more than one way) with oil and ore. If we want to use highly toxic chemicals in fracturing rock to extract gas, we should be able to do it. That’s the free market we believe in. Free for us, risky for those who have to clean up after us (remember the Great Recession and TARP–same thing).
- Get rid of public broadcasting. Public Broadcasting has provided a voice for diverse perspectives in local communities that otherwise are completely left out of commercial media for lack of the funding to buy a way in. But that voice is not necessarily monotonal–it often has religious or conservative perspectives, but it also permits liberal or atheistic perspectives. So call up the script again, which in this case might go something like this–hey, we’ve allowed media companies to consolidate so that most are owned by a very few media conglomerates (Rupert Murdoch, SONY, Sinclair, etc.). That’s great for us, because it permits us to control the way things are cast. Look at how Murdoch has made even the conservative Wall Street Journal a right-wing rag on our side–not just the op-ed pages anymore, but the way the stories are chosen and cast. PBS, on the other hand, stillmanages to show some leftie stuff–even with the fear we’ve put into them with Ken Tomlinson and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting’s requirement of balance. (We know that there isn’t always a right-wing side that’s worth covering, but no matter–they MUST adopt the Fox News view of “fair and balanced” or funding will cease. Better still, let’s just cease the funding anyway. Bill Moyers and his ilk is a threat to every multinational corporation that is attempting to protect its hordes of cash from the US treasury by offshoring jobs and offshoring all intangible rights.
Gail Collins notes the same mentality when she discusses the way Congress “saved” the Defense Department’s budget to sponsor Nascar racers. Sacred Cows, Angry Birds, New York Times, Feb 19, 2011. Yes, that’s right–Defense wanted to torpedo the funding, but Congress found it was too important to woo Nascar fans to the military-industrial complex way of thinking. They refused to cutit.
The newly ascendant Republicans have been howling that the deficit is so big, so threatening, that no traget for cutting is sacred. “Everything is on the table. We’re broke,” said Boehner.
But the table is mainly crowed with stuff the Republicans didn’t like to begin with. Family-planning money and environmental protection, but not oil tax breaks or Nascar sponsorships. “Sesame Street” is fair game, ut the Dayton 500 is untouchable.
What gives many of the elite brown pants is what happens when those SS bonds start getting cashed. SS and Medicare are the 3rd and 4th rails of politics so the only solution then is spending cuts for wars and weapons. I wish I could have another 50 years of this comfortable life to watch the fireworks.
dilbert
won’t be any fireworks. they stuck a knife in Social Security last December and hardly anyone noticed.
It’s not the cash that the Big Liars are after. They hate Social Security for ideological reasons, and because in their hearts they know that the peasants are easier to manage when they don’t have an independent source of Security.
Cutting the war budget which is “only” 20% of federal spending and “merely” 4.7% of GDP is not too little to have big impact on the economy. In fact cuts there are effective because they free up money for things that build rather than expensive science projects which raise the prices of technology and contribute only smoke and noise. Somewhat pleasing at air show as they are.
This is all false and intended to keep the war machine skimming off the top.
The accumulation of trillions of dollars in spending on war has ruined the productive economy so that it seems it cannot pay off the debt.
The republican party had been rabidly opposed to the New Deal since 1934. No change there.
Up to Reagan, the republicans, along with Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy, had been fiscally conservative, the genesis of the term “Voodoo economics” was GHW Bush being shrill about the radical departure from traditional republican views of debt. There is where I became a liberal.
The argument now and must be going forward:
“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.”
In our case the theft Eisenhower spoke of in 1953 is being perpetrated in a number of way including lies through defiling Social Security.
It soon will be unpatriotic to take care of the elderly because the war machine needs the profits.
“Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes … known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.… No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”
— James Madison, Political Observations, 1795
The “cash” is simply the way to get Congress worked up about it. Congressmen can’t think, so if you tell them the budget is crashing the budget is crashing and it’s all because Social Security has this huge unfunded Trillion dollar deficit! ™ they will get to work cutting Social Security.
The people paying for this are few, but they are not stupid. sadly, the “defenders” of Social Security are few, and are stupid.
Linda
I am not so sure about Public Broadcasting. They are reliable promulgators of the Big Lie. Even Bill Moyers gets that lapdog look on his face when he “interviews” Pete Peterson.
I suspect, because I am a deep cynic, that the “liberal” causes you still hear on public radio are there to keep that group of voters listening so they can hear the Peterson Big Lie too. After all, Peterson’s people are all “non partisan.”
Is there anyone who can see the hypocrisy in Linda’s ability to ignore the reality and message of this article: http://www.angrybearblog.com/2011/02/budget-deficit-debate-avoiding-real.html
and what the below chart foretells?
I asked some time ago “Do liberals/Democrats not get that there is an impending budget/deficit problem?” In some circles it appears there may be denial, but more importantly denial over what is the cause. Most folks/voters understand we are spending way too much than we get in revenues, and that much of the spending is buried in the mandatory spending portion of the budget, out of anyone’s but Congress’s control.
Look closely at the chart with the understanding that what it foretold as a possibility in 2030 to 2040 is here today.
CoRev
calling other people hypocrites opens the door for them to call you an idiot. you keep presenting your “argument” and your silly graph. why don’t you tell us what the graph tells you… again. so we can ignore it again, because it is based on invincible ignorance.
we all know about the budget problem. most of us know the budget problem was created by the people on your side of the aisle, in some cases deliberately in order to make responsible government difficult to impossible. and there is NO “mandatory” spending. Congress can, as you yourself note when it is convenient, change any spending at any time.
Corev:
So the solution is to cut medical coverage for children, women, the elderly, labor, the poor, the ill, etc. No CoRev, you did not understand the earlier messge as portrayed by the earlier post. It is about the cost of healthcare.
CoRev,
The malls are filled today, sheesh……… lots of walking just to get my exercise.
Love the chart!!!!! I have read a few of these annual GAO reports on debt as well as their perennial reports on the 50% waste and over runs on a trillion and a half or two in 87 big “acquisitions” in DoD and also the one where the DoD experts in DOD cannot get a certified audit because there are no inventories of stuff that don’t look like the specifications……
If the US spent what Germany spends on war the white bar would be much smaller starting now. That would mean less borrowing from SS surpluses.
Do explain more I do not see the hypocracy…………………
“Do liberals/Democrats not get that there is an impending budget/deficit problem?”
I do, not that I would catalog myself either liberal and I will not claim to be dumocrat or rethug.
I have been saying since cactus and I were writing here that a large cause of the debt is the US’ preference for war in lieu of diplomacy since 1950 when Acheson (smarting from being blamed for Chiang not being popular enough nor generalismo enough to keep China) and Paul Nitsche pushed through NSC 68 creating the excuse for the war machine pillaging the economy.
War spending takes productivity away, that is also a libertarian claim and I don’t invite that label either.
The liberals see the crisis but from the opposite side, and want the government to shift and be for the people not for the rich.
Thus a little cutting in corporate welfare, a little taxing, a little user fee increasing and the biggest bang; rationalize the militarism, maybe finally repeal NSC 68 and end the military industrial complex unwarranted influence the pillage the productive sector.
And yes a few tariffs to get some revenue for the jobs Clinton and W shipped out.
In 1998 Clintons DoD budget was $348B in 2005 dollars, in 2010 it was $610B and the economy in shambles.
There is no peer adversay on tghe horizon, and China’s rusty old Kusnetsov calls Soviet carrier displaces a third less than the top 12 active carriers 11 owned by the US and one soon to be reserved to mothbvall by the Royal Navy.
Just one example, I could go through the US owning 60% of the worlds various amphibious ships with only 3 owned by anyone who might be an adversary.
I will let you now explain the hypocrasy idea.
There is absolutely no “denial over what is the cause” (of projected deficits) on the part of liberals/Democrats. They consistently point to the lack of revenues from taxation to cover spending on programs that Americans clearly want (i.e., what some call “mandatory” spending). The inexcusable “denial” is on the part of politicians, activists, columnists, bloggers, and blog commenters who keep pointing to the spending side while pretending that the revenue side is not relevant to the deficit. Luckily, polls suggest that people generally aren’t falling for this deception, so it’s not a hopeless situation.
And there is zero hypocricy in Linda’s portrayal of politically motivated budget-cutters who masquerade as budget-balancers. They are liars and Linda calls them out. When Boehner and Ryan start complaining incessantly about our low tax revenues and propose concrete legislation to raise them, I’ll know they have seriously looked at deficit projections and perhaps are no longer political hacks and/or dangerous ideologues.
i would make the same argument against multi-million dollar church building projects. never saw a building feed or clothe anyone.
PJR, granted more revenue is needed, but are you actually saying that pumping up spending ~26% in the past few years of Democratic leadership was good and absolutely necessary? Are you saying there is nothing in that 26% that can’t be cut back? Are you saying that deficits as far as the eye can see is good? Above all are you saying that we can just keep on spending and taxing/borrowing to our little hearts content?
Maybe this chart will suffice to explain the impacts of those deficits instead of Linda’s hundreds of words. My point has been that interest on our debt is about to go out of control. And there is only one solution for that! Spend no more than is received in revenues.
We can attack that solution anyway you wish. It does not matter, but it must be attacked. And soon.
What, still unable to mention “tax increases” CoRev? Talk about hypocrisy.
“Are you saying there is nothing in that 26% that can’t be cut back? Are you saying that deficits as far as the eye can see is good? “
CoRev, this is precisely the kind of childish discourse that earns you the disrespect here that you so richly deserve. Nobody here claims that “nothing” can be cut. Nobody claims that “deficits as far as the eye can see” are good. Your lame, tired, tedious and endless efforts to posture with props rather than to engage in honest discussion amount to trolling.
Please stop trolling this thread, CoRev.
Joel, to what preciseleyare you referring whn asking: “What, still unable to mention “tax increases” CoRev? Talk about hypocrisy.” I didn’t propose any solution at that time.
My response to PJR, clearly said: “PJR, granted more revenue is needed,…” maybe that’s not clear enough?
The remainder is just the normal rant and personal attack, when there is no apparent rebuttal to the point(s) presented. Which point(s) would you like to discuss?
CoRev
If for once you would acknowledge that Social Security has a distinct and separate funding source, FICA revenues, which are not available to the general budget I might be inclined to give you some credit for attempting to discuss the deficit. You do not make such an acknowledgment and as a result your bleating falls on deaf ears as a cynical rant with a disguised agenda.
Even the Medicare budget is in large measure funded outside of the general budget, and yet you insist on including the entire cost of Medicare as though it were borne by general tax revenues. Are you trying to suggest that both programs be cut back so that their separate revenue streams could be diverted inorder to cover general budget deficiency? that is tantamount to suggesting that cutting taxes on the wealthy is best accomplished by diverting the dedicated taxes of the two most important social financial programs in our history. Do the wealthy really need yet more support from the working class?
LOL!
You post “Are you saying there is nothing in that 26% that can’t be cut back? Are you saying that deficits as far as the eye can see is good? “
I point out: Nobody here claims that “nothing” can be cut. Nobody claims that “deficits as far as the eye can see” are good.
You reply: “there is no apparent rebuttal to the point(s) presented”
Evidently you have a reading comprehension problem. The rebuttal to your “points” is that they are phony, rhetorical questions. The answer to both questions you pose is obviously “no” and you know it.
CoRev, this is precisely the kind of childish discourse that earns you the disrespect here that you so richly deserve. Your lame, tired, tedious and endless efforts to posture with props rather than to engage in honest discussion amount to trolling.
Please stop trolling this thread, CoRev.
Jack, SS has a dedicated revenue stream, but regrettably they are available to the general fund. Otherwise there wouldn’t have been the hundreds/thousands of words written about the SSTF special treasuries.
Please notice I did not use your terminology as it mixes or misrepresents common budget terms terms (distinct and separate funding source…, general budget..). Use the glossaries MG and I provided for the commonly used federal budget terms. These are not in them.
Under General we find:
General
—-fund accounts,
—-fund expenditure account,
—-fund receipt account,
Under funding there is nothing close to distinct and separate. As far as that goes there isn’t even a definition for “dedicated funding”.
While you feel passionately about your beliefs, the actual meaning of “off budget/FICA/wage tax) revenues and expenditures is: “Payroll tax receipts that go into the Social Security Trust Fund are considered “off-budget”, but are nevertheless used as revenue in the current budget.”
On the day-by-day/week-to-week operations it is simple. Revenues are collected by US Treasury and checks are cut from those revenues. When there are insufficient revenues the remainder is borrowed. Their sources are tracked, and creditied in the accounting systems, but there is no color distinction of the revenues.
As far as the HC/M&M issues I have not yet thought enough about them to have a strong opinion with the exception of Obamacare.
CoRev, I will ignore the stupid words that you put into my mouth for me and ask you to look at your own chart. Notice the big growing yellow area, interest on debt. I see the inevitable consequences of obtaining money by borrowing (primarily from the wealthy) rather than taxing (primarily from the wealthy). What do you see? If the past is any guide, I would guess that you see a failure to cut “entitlements” or “mandatory spending,” but I don’t want to put words in your mouth.
You say “Spend no more than is received in revenues” rather than “Receive in revenues no less than is spent.” This is not an accident of sentence construction–you consistently push on AB to lower the ceiling for spending and do not push them to raise the floor for revenue collection. Because this is exactly the approach taken by insincere lying deficit hawks (who always do prefer to borrow from rather than tax the wealthy), your own sincerity as a budget-balancer has to be questioned, fairly or not.
.I think it would be interesting to see what similar Budget cuts that were motivated by a Liberial ideology would be,
I am opening up this “Ideological Budget” Blog comment area for those people who would like to identify programs, and their costs, that Liberals would cut and Conservatives would prefer to retain.
As a starter I’d suggest eliminating the “Abstinence Only” programs, that would save ~$100m/year
PJR, I may have misinterpreted your response, but it is as simple minded as you obviously think is the “deficit hawks”. (Is that a growing pejorative?)
Anyway we have different starting point./ you apparently want to start by raising taxes, and I prefer to start by cutting before raising taxes. I beleive there is much in the budget to be targeted and that there is a higher percentage in the past ~26% gained in the past few years.
No I do not see: “ I would guess that you see a failure to cut “entitlements” or “mandatory spending,” but I don’t want to put words in your mouth.” What I see is a failure to adequately fund them and worse a failure to foresee the impacts of that foolish policy. I say that with some passion, as I was taught the result we are seeing today nearly five decades ago. It was that obvious!!!
Now, the underlying problem is failure to maintain a reasonable budget regime. But that’s easy but extraordinaily painful to fix.
If you have a plan, present it. Let’s talk about it, but please provide the numbers, so they can be compared to what’s needed.
CoRev: “I asked some time ago “Do liberals/Democrats not get that there is an impending budget/deficit problem?”
There are two problems. First, people pretend or believe that we are still on the gold standard. Nixon, taking the advice of Milton Friedman, took us off of the gold standard. Along with the rest of the world.
Second, people believe that the source of our money is the bond market, that we must kowtow to “bond vigilantes”, who can force us to do their bidding.
CoRev
of course the SS funds are available to Congress to steal. that’s why the words have been written. Peterson wants Congress to steal them. we want Congress not to steal them.
you write as if Congrss’ ability to steal them settles the matter. if congress can, then congress must. and you always write as if that’s the obvious thing to do to “solve” the deficit.”
get over it. please. write something honest about the deficit and we will try to listen to you.
as for however “on budget” is defined , the facts… the real world facts, the legal facts.. are that Social Security is legally distinct from the general budget and people pay their Social SEcurity “tax” on the promise that the money will be used only to pay pensions under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act.
nor do words mean what you assume they mean: SS surpluses “are used as revenue in the current budget.” the money is used in the budget, and are legally owed to the SSTF (the color distinction).
you see, like most people you read words to mean what you want them to mean.
CoREv
it was a lie five decades ago. it was “obvious” only to the ideologues who hated Social Security.
as Eisenhower said of them at the time “they are few and they are stupid.” he didn’t reckon with their persistence and their willingness to spend a lot of money to convert other stupids to their cause.
i don’t know what school you went to, but if they were “teaching” you this stuff, they were not honest. and if you sat there and took it, you were not smart.
more CoRev:
“If you have a plan, present it. Let’s talk about it, but please provide the numbers, so they can be compared to what’s needed.”
he repeats this as if no one has presented a plan. I have presented a plan, Bruce Webb has presented a plan, the CBO has presented several plans,
but CoRev can keep saying… “if you have a plan…” because he can’t hear what he doesn’t want to hear, can’t remember what he doesn’t want to remember, and seems to think that if he just keeps mindlessly repeating stuff on Angry Bear he will gain converts. That works on Fox News… and, sadly, NPR, but it doesnt’ seem to be working here.
oh, my plan, again, dangerously similar to CBO’s plan… funny CBO has a plan to save social security, which according to CoRev CBO says doesn’t exist… raise the payroll tax one half of one tenth of one percent per year… that’s forty cents per week. raise the income tax 3% until the deficit crisis has passed.
oh, yes, any stimulus to fight the recession should not be in the form of tax cuts to the people who caused the recession, but government jobs and loans to real workers and real businesses. i think we could begin to trim the fat out of the defense budget… but this paragraph is not a “plan” only a point of view. the real plan is the previous paragraph. write for details.
Regardles of how CoRev may want to parse the language, and regardless of the number of opinions he may be able to marshal concerning what is on- or off budget and how FICA funds may be spent, the Social Security Administration provides a different description of the issue than do CoRev’s conclusions. It is a complicated story, as the SSA descriptions do point out. Over the years definitions have been changed regarding on and off budget and accounting procedures. The one issue that is clear, however, is that FICA contributions (the so-called payroll tax) is “earmarked” by law for Social Security benefits payments. Any such funds remaining each year are to be accounted for as a “fund” for the purpose of future benefits payments, as needed, and to be made available to the Treasury for general use and accounted for as Treasury notes held by the Trust Fund. It
is reasonably well explained here:
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.html
Regardles of how CoRev may want to parse the language, and regardless of the number of opinions he may be able to marshal concerning what is on- or off budget and how FICA funds may be spent, the Social Security Administration provides a different description of the issue than do CoRev’s conclusions. It is a complicated story, as the SSA descriptions do point out. Over the years definitions have been changed regarding on and off budget and accounting procedures. The one issue that is clear, however, is that FICA contributions (the so-called payroll tax) is “earmarked” by law for Social Security benefits payments. Any such funds remaining each year are to be accounted for as a “fund” for the purpose of future benefits payments, as needed, and to be made available to the Treasury for general use and accounted for as Treasury notes held by the Trust Fund. It
is reasonably well explained here:
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.html
I guess I’m too old to understand this food fight, but it seems that all this noise about making cuts centers on mostly what has been fought tooth & nail to make for a better environment in the U.S.A., that all enjoy. The present congressional train of thought seems to center around, as does CoRev’s borrowing to pay bills. Now, am I being too simple minded to thiong that if something bought costs xxx number of $$$’s that if you don’t have the $$$’s to pay for it, then either you don’t buy it or you borrow to pay for it? That said, wouldn’t the wars, the toys the military want, fall into that same catagory? Why, should the taxpayers be on the hook for the bill for something that can’t be paid for?
One other thing, the S.C.O.T.U.S. in granting the Citizens United Carte Blanc status, just what are the taxpayers, those who are employed and can pay, chopped liver? And why hasn’t someone brought to the attention of Clarence Thomas conflict of interest? Why didn’t he or should I say, C.J.Roberts, who testified that he would uphold the law, require that C.T. recuse himself from the vote? Another point, why is the Roberts court an activest court, making decisions that effect the total population, but the G.O.P. are silent, then rant about the Demo’s filling the courts with so called activest judges? This is hypocrisy.
My goodness, I guess I’m being shuned here, for only a part of my post, not even the whole paragraph printed. So, disregard, I won’t play in your sandbox anymore, for it seems that who ever monitors the posts here, either thinks he’s funny or is biased as to who can say what. Making another out to look stupid is in itself an act of stupidity. And as far as typo’s, well, it’s to be expected for someone who only can see with one eye the other being made of glass.
Not likely what you think Norm. Shunned? Unless you had used some mighty strong profanity or threatened death and destruction it’s unlikely that your comment was “edited” out. More likely the comment mechanism broke down while you tried to post the comment. That happens from time to time. This site is very lightly edited, if at all. How else do we account for the comments of Sammy, CoRev and a few others who take an Atilla the Hun political perspective on a “lightly left of center” economics blog? If you go over board you’ll be notified ahead of any delisting, I’m sure. Rdan is overly lenient.
Jack, am I reading your comment correctly, You think we conservatives and independents should be banned from commenting on AB?
The reason we do come here is because it is a more or less open blog where both sides of an argument can be aired. One sided blogs are echo chambers where alternative views are not only discouraged but often attacked by claiming that those presenting the alternative views are “trolls”, and requests for banning and actual banning occurs.
My own experience, espeically in the Global Warming area, those who ban, edit/modify comments, eliminate comments, with sneering and sarcastic responses to those with alternative views are almost alwasy the leftist/believer blogs. Skeptical AGW blogs are mostly open and only lightly moderated. I find both types of blogs can have pack mentalities at times.
I dare say, Jack, due to the openness here at AB you have done a whole lot more research to make and support your points. And, Jack, that is a good thing.
Fifty years ago, I’m going to guess that you, CoRev, were taught that social entitlements will bankrupt the nation. It was and is a popular theme. The theme understandably faded a bit when we balanced the budget under Clinton and when we cut taxes and increased Medicare coverage under W. You keep pointing and alluding to it rather than actually proposing some way to balance the budget, so maybe this is the lesson (or, more accurately, canard) you learned so well and that troubles you so much.
If you want to balance the budget by starting on the spending side, start with what you agree is the key driver of future spending growth: health care expenditures. Your plan to cut future health care spending is what? Will you continuously cut coverage and let old folks increasingly pay for the care themselves? Or do you plan to let costs rise while you cut everything else to make room, so gradually health care spending will crowd out everything else? Aren’t these your basic choices on the spending side? Which long-term approach do you take?
As for the short-run, do you propose cutting the budget by $1.6 T next year to balance it? Got any numbers that get you close within the next couple of years? Obama’s budget plan will cut spending by about $100 B in 2012, so you only need to find $1.5 T more. (Obama also plans to increase revenues, such as an end to the payroll tax holiday in January and to some of the Bush tax cuts a year later, but that’s the other side of the ledger.)
The key to addressing both the short- and long-term challenges is on the revenue side–a lesson that AB helps to teach, imho. AB often has noted CBO’s analysis of ending the Bush tax cuts. AB has noted the budget-balancing benefits of a single-payer health care system. AB often has noted how SS can be balanced by raising the SS tax rate gradually. AB often has noted the economic benefits of raising the top marginal tax rate, although I don’t believe it has also estimated the resultant rise in tax revenues. AB has at least mentioned the Schakowsky deficit reduction plan, which contains many revenue enhancements (as well as smaller but significant spending cuts, especially for defense, which AB also has often discussed). In brief, AB has continuously offered deficit and debt reduction ideas–primarily but not exclusively by addressing the revenue side–that in the aggregage would overachieve without reducing SS or Medicare benefits. AB postings on defict and debt issues, like Linda’s, are grounded in an analytically strong position with which you may disagee but may not deny.
CoRev–I must disabuse you of any notion that you are somehow imminently to be banned. Surely, you know that is unlikely to happen. I still don’t agree with you. And, I wish I had a retirement annuity as big as yours, but heck! have at it! Ain’t no skin offa this ole linebacker’s nose. NancyO
jeff
and in America you don’t have to pay for them.
Jack, thanks for the post. There wasn’t any death threats, profanity, or destructive thoughts. Just comments of the open nature that A.B. is famous for. But tell me, how does a machine tell when to chop off a comment, not using above references?
To CoRev, face it, you enjoy stirring the pot, otherwise you wouldn’t do what you do.
CoRev
speaking as an old conservative myself, i don’t think conservatives and independents (hey i’m one of those, too) should be banned. Heck, i don’t even think you should be banned(you are neither conservative nor independent, but a reliable repeater of the radical right talking points) except when the effect of your posting amounts to “denial of service.”
PJR, I’m not sure why you start off by referencing the social welfare question and its history. It’s the core of the discussion today, and unless you are making some other obtuse point it shows the truth of of that original statement.
You also claimed: “…than actually proposing some way to balance the budget, …” How many plans do I need to propose? Balancing the budget is truly easy! Stop borrowing. Do not raise the debt ceiling. How’s that for a very, very simple plan?
In the real world I would look to get the budget balanced in as short a time as possible to reduce the political posturing. To do that freeze spending at 2008 levels. Limit increases to CPI increases. That sets the 2012 budget at $2.9T a cut of $.8T from Obama’s proposed $3.7T. Actual 2011 federal receipts were $2.179, and the 2012 budget estimates 2012 receipts at $2.627, so under my plan the estimated actual deficit for 2012 is between $.273 (using estimated 2012 rev.) to $.721 (using actual 2011 rev.).
Going forward then my plan needs to handle a deficit of ~$700B to ~$273B. (Avg of $487B).
Revenue increases would include immediate repeal of the Bush tax cut extension. FY2012 gains ~$70B/Yr, I also would allow Dale to raise wage rates by his 3% for an added ~$180B/Yr. Assuming the economic recovery continues, at the estimated 3.5%, and if the tax increases get us to a meager 17% from the latest 14.4% of GDP that will raise an added ~$.35T. So without even trying we have (.07 + .18 + .35) = $.6T. (~$.6T – ~$.487t) = ~$.133 surplus over the estimated average deficit.
That gives us an approximate ~53% cuts and ~47% revenue increases to achieve your $1.5T.
If you want to spread it out, that’s OK.
That’s my latest. Where’s yours with the numbers?
“Jack, am I reading your comment correctly, You think we conservatives and independents should be banned from commenting on AB?” CoRev
Now I undeerstand the problem. You are dyslexic. When you read the words on the paper you some how understand only the words that you had already had in your head. I assume that you are refering to my comment to Norm. Any reasonable understanding of the words on the page would have been that I was commenting on Dan’s acceptance of other ppoints of view no matter how extreme thay may seem, other than rank profanity or threats of bodily injury. I suppose racial and ethnic slurs would not be tolerated. And you, CoRev, some how read into that that I would prefer to ban those who disagree.
“I dare say, Jack, due to the openness here at AB you have done a whole lot more research to make and support your points. And, Jack, that is a good thing.” CoRev
That’s the only part of your comment that is based in reality, but at least it is that.
Norm,
Not knowing what was left off, and how, I couldn’t say how the posting “machinery” does what it does. Suffice it to say that it does some weird things some of the time. If I type out a longer comment I will often “copy” the written comment before hitting the post button, just in case.
Linda Beale – “Gail Collins notes the same mentality when she discusses the way Congress “saved” the Defense Department’s budget to sponsor Nascar racers. Sacred Cows, Angry Birds, New York Times, Feb 19, 2011. Yes, that’s right–Defense wanted to torpedo the funding, but Congress found it was too important to woo Nascar fans to the military-industrial complex way of thinking. They refused to cutit.”
That is a false claim. The U.S. Department of Defense did not try “to torpedo” or terminate the sports sponsorship recruiting marketing funding including NASCAR funding. The main post should be corrected to reflect the truth instead of the nonsense posted. Nothing of the sort was undertaken the U.S. Department of Defense. Beale’s hatred of the U.S. military is obvious on this blog, but this no excuse to fabricate a statement of supposed U.S. Department of Defense policy or budget submission intent. There is no excuse. Beale lied.
The NYTimes article that Beale cited as her supposed source doesn’t support her “torpedo” claim: “The Defense Department claims racecar sponsorships are an important recruiting tool for the Army. The House agreed — although this might be news to the Navy and Marines, which decided a while back that a Nascar presence wasn’t worth the money.”
—–
Lt. Gen. Benjamin C. Freakley, Commanding General of the U.S. Army Accessions Command:
“We have (reduced) the races that we’re in, we’ve (reduced) our sponsorship because it’s the American people’s money, we recognize that, but, regardless, I have to invest in awareness,” Lt. Gen. Benjamin Freakley, who oversees the Army’s NASCAR program, said at a news conference Friday at Daytona. “So, in some venue or another, I have to make some form of investment to make the American people aware of their Army, and this is what we think is a good investment based on… what we watch in return on investment.” Freakley, though, could not say how many recruits joined because of the program but said there was more to it than that. He noted that the Army had leads with more than 150,000 candidates through its motorsports programs.
The Air Force’s funding for its NASCAR program represents less than 2 percent of its marketing budget, an aide said. The National Guard’s funding last year ($32.7 million) represented 14 percent of its marketing budget. The Army’s sponsorship of Newman is nearly double the $3.9 million it spends to sponsor an NHRA team. Army’s sponsorship of a NASCAR team has dropped more than a third since 2009.
Brig. Gen. Balan Ayyar, commander of the Air Force’s recruiting, said the military branches must spend money on recruiting and that NASCAR works. “For the things that the Air Force has to offer the nation, the speed, the precision, the teamwork, all of those align with the NASCAR environment,” Ayyar said. “We don’t have a specific survey that says ‘Were you inspired just by NASCAR when you chose the United States Air Force?’ But we have anecdotal data that suggests that the broad scope of our marketing strategy is working.”
U.S. Sen. Jon Kyl ( R-Ariz.) said in a phone interview that he supported the military sponsorship of NASCAR teams. “I don’t think (McCollum) appreciates the recruiting value of sponsors in NASCAR,” said Kyl, a NASCAR fan who stayed up late Thursday to watch a tape of Daytona’s qualifying races. “The only reason companies sponsor cars or races is because they can see marketing value from the exposure that they get or they wouldn’t do it. Nobody wants to throw away their money. “The same thing is true when the military has sponsored cars. If the military thinks […]
The Marines axed their racing team in 2006 because of a smaller ad budget and because there was no way to know if it actually boosted recruiting. Today, only the Army, the National Guard and the Air Force still sponsor race cars.
Col. Derik Crotts, director of the army’s sponsorship, said in an e-mail that the Army spends $7 million a year on its racing team, and finds it valuable. “Youth surveys show that motorsports is a passion point for young Americans,” wrote Crotts. “It is critical that the Army use these passion points to communicate with prospects and their influencers.”
http://msn.foxsports.com/nascar/story/Congresswoman-Betty-McCollum-takes-aim-at-Pentagons-NASCAR-sponsorship-021511
——
“NASCAR sponsorships have proven to be a very important recruiting tool. With some estimating for every dollar the government puts in NASCAR sponsorship, it gets $4 in equivalent in advertising in television, merchandise and other outlets,” said Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen.
“Let’s be clear. This amendment will not save one single dime,” said Rep. Patrick McHenry.
http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpp/news/army-nascar-car-causes-controversy-in-dc-021811
—–
Lieutenant General Benjamin Freakley said the $7.4 million per year the Army is spending to sponsor NASCAR is being put to good use, as he estimates 46,000 leads have come directly from NASCAR and the environment gives recruiters a great way to reach young people. “We know this is having an impact on recruiting and helping our recruiters with their jobs,” Freakley said Friday. “The alternative to this is having a recruiter walk up and down a mall and talking to about 150 people just to get one person to engage them.”
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-02-18/sports/os-daytona-500-news-0219-2-20110218_1_nascar-sponsorship-drive4copd-restrictor-plates
—–
Hendrick Motorsports’ Dale Earnhardt Jr. has a half-season sponsorship from the National Guard; Stewart-Haas Racing’s Ryan Newman has a 15-race sponsorship from the U.S. Army and the Air Force sponsors a handful of races for Richard Petty Motorsports’ AJ Allmendinger. U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Benjamin Freakley said at the Daytona 500 last year that the Army was paying approximately $500,000 a race for 15 races on Newman’s car. The Army cut its sponsorship from 23 races to 15 prior to the 2010 season. The Army uses the sponsorship to fill certain needs and make sure it recruits from all areas of the country. “It’s a tremendous outreach for us,” Freakley said. “It’s very important. This is such a national stage and so many people do link into NASCAR. … Ryan is a very good spokesman for us. “He’s well spoken. Having a degree from Purdue in engineering helps him reach out and talk to people about science and technology and math programs. He resonates well with our population, 17-24 years old. His outreach has been pretty good for us.”
http://www.scenedaily.com/news/articles/sprintcupseries/US_Congresswoman_wants_to_ban_military_sponsorship_of_race_cars.html
CoRev, I see where you’re coming from now, thanks. You think it’s easy to cut $800 B and just wish it away–okay, fine. On the revenue side, btw, that’s not a Coberly/Webb tax hike, and you double-counted the $0.35 T in revenue from economic grownth (it’s already in the Obama budget numbers that you used). And you offer no idea re Medicare/Medicaid cost growth. Otherwise, it’s a plan with numbers. As for me, I’ll take all the numbers in the Schakowsky plan that balances the primary budget, replacing her SS plan with Coberly/Webb’s better method. Then to address interest, pay down debt, and stop the rise of long-term health care costs: Medicare for all ($200+ B in first year), end Bush tax cuts on top earners (your $70 B), and a Kimel-inspired top bracket for million-plus incomes (est. $100 B). If needed because we act late, end Bush tax cuts to the lower brackets, too (c. $150 B). Conversely, if we act quickly and are overachieving, reduce Schakowsky’s corporate tax hikes–maybe let the CoC choose one, using their right to free speech. After 2016, add more military force/acquisition cuts if we aren’t invading one of the Koreas. Really nothing that hasn’t been somewhere on AB recently. Now, on to other threads and sites. Thanks.
PJR, what part of “If you want to spread it out, that’s OK. ” makes wishing it away? Snark is valueless, in a reasonable discussion.
My plan is based on establishing a reduced budget baseline. From that baselin we can start the cutting and revenue increasing to establish equilibrium. I hinted at extending the timeframe if you wished to lower the pain threshold. finally, I did not double count the Obama guess at economic growth, as I used a reduced baseline, not his 2012 budget.
As to your proposal: Schadkowsky ends up with ~$108.75 of cuts after deducting her $200 up front increase in spending. You then add $200B for paying down debt and slowing the rise in HC costs. My numbers are from here: http://schakowsky.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2777:
Net effect in the PJR/Schadkowsky plan? Gain of $91.25B in spending. From that we take the $70B + $100B + $150B for a new total of $228.75B in reduction.
Where are you going to get the other ~$1.27T to make up the annual deficit?
Re: the HC rise issue you raise, my proposal was to raise the “wage rate” by 3%, which was proposed by Dale on several comments in the past weeks. This is far in excess of that needed to protect SS. So, since they are wage rate increases, the excess could go to pay for added HC costs. Which, BTW reduces the deficit.
Please explain where I am misinterpreting your plan or go back and rethink it. Going through these exercise begins to explain just how intractable this problem is becoming.
The detailed Schakowsky plan balances the primary budget in 2015 (not in 2012, where your numbers are focused and when she spends that investment money). She said it does more than that in 2015 and she was correct before the tax cut deal in December. I added nearly a half trillion in revenues to more than cover interest payments if the plan is implemented wiithin the next year or two. Her detailed numbers are at http://schakowsky.house.gov/images/stories/1202_Schakowsky_Deficit_Reduction_Plan.pdf
Apologies for the snark, so I’ll re-phrase. I don’t believe a plan can turn the clock back to 2008 without addressing the tough calls. If you return to the 2008 expenditure level for SSA, you’ll have to cut each benefit check next year by 18 percent. If you do this to Medicare, you’ll have to cut coverage 19 percent. If you do this to active duty military pay, you’d cut grunts’ paychecks 8 percent in January (along with their medical care). Many such tough calls to make. As for your wage tax (Coberly, fwiw, phases that in over decades) and HC, you could increase the tax annually to keep up with projected rises in HC spending, I suppose, but that tax would get large. As for double-counting, I thought you used Obama’s projected growth in revenues for 2012, which derive mostly from economic growth (some is the end of the payroll tax holiday), but perhaps I misread.
Regardless, we’re way way past boring everyone here. We’ll just have to disagree on the best approach.
PJR agreed on both points, we’re being too wonky and disagree on the best approach.
One final point, Schakowsky only gets the deficit donw by ~$441B by 2015. From her plan you provided the link for: “The Schakowsky Plan would reduce the deficit in 2015 by
$441 billion,…” I didn’t do the math to compare your additions to her plan, did they total ~$1T?
You don’t have to answer, I will eventually do the math.